29 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs that a legitimate right? And if it is, is smoking be a legitimate way to pursuit happiness? Why would anyone be less happy if they couldn't smoke?
The mother's pusuit of happiness in enjoying her cigarette in the comfort of her own home..
If the cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned by The Food and Drug Administration. They have no legitimate health or nutritional value, and they are poisonous. It would be illegal to manufacture or sell tobacco products for the purposes of smoking.
29 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThey do have the right to broadcast obscenities. The FCC can only fine them after the fact. They can not stop them.
FCC censorship is one existing example. The press has a right to not be curtailed, but they can't broadcast obscenities, because it has been decided that the people's right to decent broadcasting over the shared resource of radio waves is more valuable.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiIn the United States Declaration of Independence, it is claimed that all [people] have the inalienable rights to both liberty and to pursuit of happiness. Therefore, in the US, these rights exist.
Is that a legitimate right? And if it is, is smoking be a legitimate way to pursuit happiness? Why would anyone be less happy if they couldn't smoke?
If the cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned by The Food and Drug Administration. They have no legitimate health or nutritional value, and they are poisonous. It would be illegal to manufacture or sell tobacco products for the purposes of smoking.
Why would anyone be less happy if they couldn't smoke? Because some people like to smoke and it makes them happy. Who are you to tell someone that smoking doesn't make them happy if they say it does?
29 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf I come to a voluntary agreement with a provider of the forum that allows me to, then yes.
I'm sure you also have a "Right To Spout Non-Sense On RHP Forums" ...... LMSO
But of couse I don't have the right to demand that the governemnt provide me with a forum in which to do it.
Similarly, if a smoker voluntaritly obtains cigarettes through trade, he is free to smoke them, but he doesn't have the right to demand that the government provide him with cigarettes. This is what I meant when I said that Americans declared their right to smoke. A liberty right, not a claim right.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTechnically, the DI does not carry the weight of law. Only the Constitution has that authority.
In the United States Declaration of Independence, it is claimed that all [people] have the inalienable rights to both liberty and to pursuit of happiness. Therefore, in the US, these rights exist.
Why would anyone be less happy if they couldn't smoke? Because some people like to smoke and it makes them happy. Who are you to tell someone that smoking doesn't make them happy if they say it does?
The FDA can could not stop people from smoking, but it could stop the manufacture of tobacco products under it's normal criteria.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If I come to a voluntary agreement with a provider of the forum that allows me to, then yes.
But of couse I don't have the right to demand that the governemnt provide me with a forum in which to do it.
Similarly, if a smoker voluntaritly obtains cigarettes through trade, he is free to smoke them, but he doesn't have the right to demand that t ...[text shortened]... en I said that American's declared their right to smoke. A liberty right, not a claim right.
Are you serious ? ...... LMSO
Do you also have a "Right to Pollute The Air", which smoking of cigarettes is ?
What about if you pursue your happiness by taking a dump in the streets ? I bet you also have a "Right To Take A Dump In The Streets".
29 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat you present is yet another conflict of liberty rights.
What about if you pursue your happiness by taking a dump in the streets ? I bet you also have a "Right To Take A Dump In The Streets".
Yes, in America, one has the absolute right to take a dump on the streets, provided
they are his own bought and paid for streets on his own property.
The people have an absolute right to set standards of use for public works, such as
public streets.
When you mix the two cases, you have a conflict of rights. Somebody's has to be valued higher. The valuation of the higher right doesn't negate the existence of the lesser right, for when the conflict goes away, the lesser right still exists.
Dr. S
P.S. As I understand it, taking a dump on the streets of Amsterdam is not an uncommon occurrence, so it seems that Dutchmen assert that right as well.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioThat is up to the factfinder. You people seem to have a problem distinguishing between things that are not precisely defined and those that are arbitrary. Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" mathematically precise? Of course not, and to be candid, very few things in the law are. You cannot feed the facts of any case into a computer having preset parameters and know what the outcome is going to be. However, there are common sense and legal guidelines that factfinders follow every day in thousands of courts.
But how much staggering and how many slurred words (as a testimony
from the officer) is sufficient for deeming a person unable to drive
safely?
This is the arbitrary part. Falling down drunk, ok no problem. But
slightly buzzed? How slightly? &c.
This is off-topic, but very interesting in any event.
Nemesio
When I say a BAC law is arbitrary I mean it in the legal sense of the term. That is, it treats different situations the same given its purpose which is to punish intoxicated drivers. People over a certain BAC may not be intoxicated at all, while people below it with less tolerance for alcohol may be extremely intoxicated. Therefore, what a BAC laws makes a crime is not being intoxicated, but having a certain level of alcohol in your blood while driving. Since having a certain BAC is no assurance that you are intoxicated AND having a lower BAC is no insurance you are not intoxicated, the law is what we call "under" and "over" inclusive. Therefore, in my view, it should be abolished.
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What you present is yet another conflict of liberty rights.
Yes, in America, one has the absolute right to take a dump on the streets, provided
they are his own bought and paid for streets on his own property.
The people have an absolute right to set standards of use for public works, such as
public streets.
When you mix the two cases, y ...[text shortened]... e existence of the lesser right, for when the conflict goes away, the lesser right still exists.
Do you also have a "Right to Pollute the Air" which smoking of cigarettes is ?
29 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, again, Americans simply asserted this right a couple hundred years ago. In practice, it is weighed against others' liberty rights and regulated accordingly. But if no American found his rights to be violated by pollution, then yes, by declaration, Americans have the absolute right to pollute the air.
Do you also have a "Right to Pollute the Air" which smoking of cigarettes is ?